Hi Lennart!
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 3/26/06, yuppie <y.2006_-E2EsyBC0hj3+aS/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is the latest revision from the CMF 1.6 branch:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFDefault/browser/five_template.pt?rev=40122
It is shipped with CPS 3.4 and was never changed since the initial
checkin. None of your changes are used in CPS 3.4.
Then I do not know what "my changes" are.
No, because it didn't work, which is why I replaced it.
Wrong.
You are using the old CMF five_template in CPS 3.4.
I'm getting extremely annoyed by your attitude here, when you are not
prepared to explain what the problems are, what changes was made and
when, but evidently want to blame them on me, but aren't listening to
what I'm saying.
I'm listening, but not everything you say makes sense to me. And I don't
want to blame anybody for that change. I just want to understand why the
new five_template is better than the old one. And if it is not better,
revert the change before the final release.
I suggest you clearly describe exactly what you think is the problem,
and make a suggestion to fix that, without any claims that anything
has been broken by anyone, unless you can point out the exact checkin
that the breakage happened and explain exactly why it is broken.
These two checkins
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/CMFDefault/skin/?rev=38594&view=rev
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/CMFDefault/skin/?rev=38595&view=rev
replaced the five_template for CMF 2.0 and trunk.
In my last mail I added links to the two versions before and after that
change:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFDefault/browser/five_template.pt?rev=40122
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/CMFDefault/skin/five_template.pt?rev=38594
That change contained two parts:
1.) Mapping 'style_slot' to 'css_slot' instead of 'style_slot'. You
agreed in http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2006-March/024221.html
that this was a bug and I fixed it yesterday.
2.) Adding two slots 'base' and 'header'. AFAICS these are CMF specific
slots. If I did get you right you agree that providing CMF specific
slots is not a good idea and CPS 3.4 / CalZope don't use these slots.
This second part did not 'break' anything, but it encourages people to
use CMF specific slots in views. So if we agree that providing CMF
specific slots is no improvement I propose to remove them.
Peace!
Yuppie
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
